open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked PETITION: Reduce fighter spam lag!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 : last (15)

Author Topic

sliver 0xD
exiles.
Posted - 2007.09.10 11:01:00 - [301]
 

/disagree

there are no drones in jita, still there is lag. this will be the second nerf on drones that will not help the lag problem.

the numbers u use are not facts. lag is made up from more factors then just a few drones.

i actualy trained up my drone skills as high as posible to fight in lag. ironic enough goons made me make this choice :P


James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.10 11:12:00 - [302]
 

Originally by: sliver 0xD
/disagree

there are no drones in jita, still there is lag. this will be the second nerf on drones that will not help the lag problem.

the numbers u use are not facts. lag is made up from more factors then just a few drones.

i actualy trained up my drone skills as high as posible to fight in lag. ironic enough goons made me make this choice :P



No one anywhere has implied drones are the sole cause of lag?

Lag will always exist so long as perfect hardware doesn't, which means that there is no "one solution to rule them all", and that all lag everywhere can't be fixed doesn't mean that steps should not be taken that effect the middle ground of lag.

If we could drop the number of entities in the air from carriers to 5 each like ships, then middle ground lag - say, 2 groups of carriers engaging each other - will be no more potentially lagging then two equally sized fleets of any other ship type.

shinoda
Trojans
Pride - Honor - Duty
Posted - 2007.09.10 12:22:00 - [303]
 

Edited by: shinoda on 10/09/2007 12:28:10
The OP's logic is flawed. Drones don't interact with each other. Therefor the flops needed by the server to control them don't rise exponentialy.
What rises exponentialy however is the amount of outbound data from the node as each client connected to the grid gets updated on every action of each single drone.
While the node itself might more or less be able to cope with it due to Gigabit infrastructure most homecomputer systems won't.

What is needed (and thats not just because of fighters) is a slimmed down protocol for large scale fights.

There is no need to notify my client when a drone thats not on me is firing a shot. I don't care if they play firing animations. I know that they are attacking when they orbit someone!
There is no need to have the server calculate an orbiting path either. I don't care if the drones orbit in a different pattern on a different client as long as both clients see them on the same target!
There is no need to notify my client of each single gun on the battlefield completing a cycle! A generic "this boat has started/stopped firing at you" message will do because its very likely that I wont find the time to admire the fancy animations anyways.
There is no need to calculate a flightpath for each missile in realtime either.

Not in a large scale battle! These details go unnoticed and are unnessecary! All they do is create an immense amount of traffic that drags down the server and prolongs grid loading.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.09.10 14:37:00 - [304]
 

Originally by: shinoda
Edited by: shinoda on 10/09/2007 12:28:10
The OP's logic is flawed. Drones don't interact with each other. Therefor the flops needed by the server to control them don't rise exponentialy.



You have never seen drones bounce off each other? Because this is a fairly common occurance.

Quote:

What rises exponentialy however is the amount of outbound data from the node as each client connected to the grid gets updated on every action of each single drone.


This part is actually a linear increase

shinoda
Trojans
Pride - Honor - Duty
Posted - 2007.09.10 14:51:00 - [305]
 

Edited by: shinoda on 10/09/2007 14:50:54
Originally by: Goumindong
You have never seen drones bounce off each other? Because this is a fairly common occurance.

Nope, I haven't. If thats true however, then the OP makes sense.

Quote:
Quote:

What rises exponentialy however is the amount of outbound data from the node as each client connected to the grid gets updated on every action of each single drone.


This part is actually a linear increase

Actually true aswell... thats what you get for adding bits and pieces by the edit function. Rolling Eyes
Ofc trafic generation from drones is linear. It's adding new players to the grid that causes exponential growth.

Doesn't change the fact thou, that all those shiny animations are useless in a fleet fight. Default animations would do the trick and they'd rely on alot less information being transferred.

Duranium
Posted - 2007.09.10 16:55:00 - [306]
 

/signed

Dagam
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.10 18:03:00 - [307]
 

Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 18:04:23
It's more like (players + drones)^2 . Drones don't cause as much lag individually as a player but they do interact, if you collide with them they bounce off. They bounce off each other, off wrecks, POS shields (that used to trigger a recursion that caused lag), etc. Changing human behavior to reduce players is tricky but reducing the number of drones (in this case fighters) is easy and will result in an exponential reduction of lag and would not benefit one side more than another.

Dagam
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.10 18:05:00 - [308]
 

Originally by: sliver 0xD
/disagree

there are no drones in jita, still there is lag. this will be the second nerf on drones that will not help the lag problem.

the numbers u use are not facts. lag is made up from more factors then just a few drones.

i actualy trained up my drone skills as high as posible to fight in lag. ironic enough goons made me make this choice :P


Nobody said drones are the sole cause of lag.

Citric Acid
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.09.11 01:51:00 - [309]
 

Hopefully the new drone changes will fix the lag.

Valea
Life. Universe. Everything.
Posted - 2007.09.11 02:08:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Dagam
Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 18:04:23
It's more like (players + drones)^2 . Drones don't cause as much lag individually as a player but they do interact, if you collide with them they bounce off. They bounce off each other, off wrecks, POS shields (that used to trigger a recursion that caused lag), etc. Changing human behavior to reduce players is tricky but reducing the number of drones (in this case fighters) is easy and will result in an exponential reduction of lag and would not benefit one side more than another.


So wouldn't just turning off collision on drones fix this lag problem to some extent? I can appreciate your efforts to reduce lag, but much of the logic in the OP seems to be rooted in assumption. " 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone." Jita is unusable at 800 people, but I have flown in the same gang as a 25 fighter (or 15,625 drone, I suppose)spamming mothership with no lag, so I would reach the conclusion that 25 fighters most certainly do not generate the amount of lag the op is claiming, if drones are in fact handled in the same way as player ships. It is obvious that fighters and drones cause undue amounts of lag, but I still can't understand where this idea of exponential lag increase is coming from. I can understand that more drones out means more drones bumping around and thus more server strain, but still 25 = 15,625 seems a pretty far fetched claim.

Devian 666
Transmetropolitan
Posted - 2007.09.11 02:53:00 - [311]
 

Irrespective of the numbers drones contribute to lag and recent conflicts have contributed to drone/fighter lag.

There needs to be a way to reduce the processing and network traffic so that large conflict become bearable. I was concerned after Rev 2.0 that a 1v1 in an empty system in 0.0 with no pos's in local would have significant latency during combat.

We need both hardware and software solutions rather than ppl arguing where the lag comes from.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.09.11 08:11:00 - [312]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 11/09/2007 08:12:04
Originally by: Valea
Originally by: Dagam
Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 18:04:23
It's more like (players + drones)^2 . Drones don't cause as much lag individually as a player but they do interact, if you collide with them they bounce off. They bounce off each other, off wrecks, POS shields (that used to trigger a recursion that caused lag), etc. Changing human behavior to reduce players is tricky but reducing the number of drones (in this case fighters) is easy and will result in an exponential reduction of lag and would not benefit one side more than another.


So wouldn't just turning off collision on drones fix this lag problem to some extent? I can appreciate your efforts to reduce lag, but much of the logic in the OP seems to be rooted in assumption. " 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone." Jita is unusable at 800 people, but I have flown in the same gang as a 25 fighter (or 15,625 drone, I suppose)spamming mothership with no lag, so I would reach the conclusion that 25 fighters most certainly do not generate the amount of lag the op is claiming, if drones are in fact handled in the same way as player ships. It is obvious that fighters and drones cause undue amounts of lag, but I still can't understand where this idea of exponential lag increase is coming from. I can understand that more drones out means more drones bumping around and thus more server strain, but still 25 = 15,625 seems a pretty far fetched claim.


its An^2+Bn not n^3, the person the OP was quoting had made an error. This means that 25 drones use 625 times more resources than 1 drone and 25 times more resources than 5.

I am not sure what "800 people in jita" has to do with your assertion, but look at it this way. 800 people in jita are sitting in stations for the most part. There is little if all combat, yet it still lags to heck.

Lets say drones use half the resources that players do, then 800 people on grid with no drones is roughly equivelent to 228 people on grid with drones out. 106 carriers with fighters out, and 66 motherships with drones out.

Now, clearly the server cant hand a 400 vs 400 fight, drones or no. So lets start looking at more realistic numbers. A 200 v 200 fight with no drones is about the same amount of resrouces as a 57 v 57 fight when everyone has 5 drones, a 26 vs 26 fight for carriers with 13 fighters each, and a 16 v 16 fight of motherships.

The other day, bob warped 16 carriers and 4 motherships in on GS. Or about 24 carriers equivelent. That was, in terms of server load, one quarter of 400 person slugfest, before you started counting the 50-100 ships that GS had on the gate, which would keep increasing load exponentially as they were added.

Basically, how many people on grid and fighting at the same time can the server handle? Well, if you divide that by 8, that is how many carriers the server can handle. Now, if you cut the number of drones down to 5 then the server can handle 3.5 people for every one carrier.

Or without the change, 10 carriers will create the lag of at least 99 people not using drones.

With the change, 10 carriers will create the lag of at least 42 people not using drones.

42 people not using drones uses 4.5 times less server resources than 99 people not using drones.

*Disclaimer: It was a long time since i have attempted to solve problems like these, the answer may be wrong, though they should not be off by far, and should be underestimations in favor of not making the reduction]

Morris Falter
Caldari
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2007.09.11 10:55:00 - [313]
 

In a recent engagement, 7 carriers deployed drones at once. The node blipped and no commands were responded too for a short time (30-40s).

This was with 16 people in local. Scale this up to blobs of 50+ carriers, and there you have a slight problem.

Something, clearly, is up. Keep the petition going.

Dagam
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.11 11:07:00 - [314]
 

Edited by: Dagam on 11/09/2007 11:27:52
Originally by: Valea
Originally by: Dagam
Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 18:04:23
It's more like (players + drones)^2 . Drones don't cause as much lag individually as a player but they do interact, if you collide with them they bounce off. They bounce off each other, off wrecks, POS shields (that used to trigger a recursion that caused lag), etc. Changing human behavior to reduce players is tricky but reducing the number of drones (in this case fighters) is easy and will result in an exponential reduction of lag and would not benefit one side more than another.


So wouldn't just turning off collision on drones fix this lag problem to some extent? I can appreciate your efforts to reduce lag, but much of the logic in the OP seems to be rooted in assumption. " 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone." Jita is unusable at 800 people, but I have flown in the same gang as a 25 fighter (or 15,625 drone, I suppose)spamming mothership with no lag, so I would reach the conclusion that 25 fighters most certainly do not generate the amount of lag the op is claiming, if drones are in fact handled in the same way as player ships. It is obvious that fighters and drones cause undue amounts of lag, but I still can't understand where this idea of exponential lag increase is coming from. I can understand that more drones out means more drones bumping around and thus more server strain, but still 25 = 15,625 seems a pretty far fetched claim.

I get what you're saying. If there's 10 people, the server has to send each person information about 50 drones or 500x the amount of calculations one drone causes. 100 people; 500 drones or 50,000 drone informations. If there's X people, it's X * X * (number of drones per person). So it's exponential based on number of people and linear on number of drones per person, unless more drones also increases how much they interact and cause more server calculations. Turning off drone collision would probably make this interaction is minimal so yes you are right. I didn't see it this way until now. I still would like to see fighters per carrier to be reduced overall although it would only be a linear decrease in calculations (edit: if collision was removed)

Barthezz
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.09.11 11:37:00 - [315]
 

I do tend to agree that the number of drones put out has a considerable effect as there are indeed calculations needed. But I doubt they increase exponentially in effect to players the way your suggesting. But it doesnt really matter as it still increases lag.

However the fix is not as easy as just increasing damage by x %.

The reason I say that lowering the amount of drones a carrier (or mothership) can field has a lot more effects. To name just a few (most important ones) :

* Lower Effectiveness (Damage / Repair Amount / EW change / etc)
* Lower collective HP (10-25 drones have more HP then 5)
* Easier killable (5 drones are a lot easier to web / kill / ew, even with a boost to their HP, then lets say 10-25 drones)

Even if you increase their effectiveness (not just damage) your still not there, even if you increase their HP your still not there. Its a fact that you can easily web 5 fighters (compared to 10-25) making a carrier a lot more vulnerable. The effectiveness increase would also have to work for all drone types not just fighters.

I would miss deploying 20 fighters with my Nyx though, but I can see how it would at least help a bit in some fights (not all though). But I fear the 'easier killable' factor has a bigger impact then some would think. (think about for example a warrior ii swarm that is used to kill those pesky interdictors, suddenly there's only 5 left which are a LOT easier killable then 20, less targeting time, etc)

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.11 13:06:00 - [316]
 

Edited by: James Duar on 11/09/2007 13:23:50
Why not ask for the middle ground? Can anyone think of a good reason that drones should not have collisions turned off OR drone-drone collisions ignored?

CCP could progressively try a few of these, but we all know collisions can be a fairly nasty computational issue, so surely even if drone collisions were still desired a vast section of the problem (and some bugs such as drones colliding on the way back to a ship) would go away if drone-drone collisions were switched off.

You could also get rid of wreck-drone collisions at the same time, drone-corpse, drone-pod?

tl;dr : CCP should turn off checking for collisions between individual drones since this would eliminate a huge section of collision checks when massed drones/fighters are present (as they usually are).

EDIT: Or just turn off collision testing for drones, put it on Sisi and see how many people notice without being told. And once they notice, if they care.

DrNeato
Posted - 2007.09.11 18:12:00 - [317]
 

Signed.

Lowa
Gallente
North Star Networks
The Kadeshi
Posted - 2007.09.11 19:10:00 - [318]
 

Have you seen the new blog on ships with MOOAAAR drones? Razz
I think this idea got screwed. And it wasnt a bad idea I might add.


/Lowa

Wednesday Sheffield
Amarr
Shadow Incursion
Shadows Incursion
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:37:00 - [319]
 

Signed.

Lag that effects everyone equally is bad enough but when one side (whoever has more motherships/carriers at the battle) is able to unilaterally side step it fights become unfightable.

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:40:00 - [320]
 

Originally by: Lowa
Have you seen the new blog on ships with MOOAAAR drones? Razz
I think this idea got screwed. And it wasnt a bad idea I might add.


Well no, the blog doesn't seem to indicate that people will be able to launch more drones.

Quote:
Edit note: Bandwidth referenced here is not in reference to your internet connection. It's to un-nerf specialized drone ships and allow more differentation between ships.


I believe the intent behind it is to give ships like the Vexor and Arbitrator families more veratility while not allowing them use five heavy drones. The five drone limit should still be in place. Thank you for your support, though.

As for the petition itself, if, as the blog says, they've already finalized what's going in for Rev 3, then I guess this issue has probably already been noticed at some point.

To reiterate, though, what many feel are problems are:

Drone collisions - From my limited understanding of programming, physics of movement are just hard to calculate in almost any situation. If they made drones immaterial it could reduce server usage pretty significantly. I can't really think of a situation where it might be exploitable, except for maybe drones passing through Starbase force fields and Stations, but I can't really think of a situation where someone could take advantage of that in any tangible way. (pun not intended)

Drone "Auto-aggro" AI - More often a complaint from mission-runners who get annoyed when drones aggro all the NPCs in a mission, but with fighters, if the system is badly, badly lagged and the fighters have engaged, they will continue to kill ship after ship on their own while manned ships can't do anything to escape or kill them. Nozh's post in Features and Ideas says that they're working on drone AI, so that could be something.

The issue here is both that the fighters just make too much lag and also that they become too useful in laggy fights, where they become the deciding factor. If they didn't make so much lag you could just shoot them, but realistically speaking that's just not possible. It's hard enough getting people to jump into gatecamps and engage without them, but with fighters, only an idiot would do it, since it'd be about the same as warping into a 10/10 complex and going for a walk.

They made corpses and cans immaterial for the benefit of supercap pilots because they didn't have the manpower to completely redo the physics engine; would it be reasonable to adjust drone auto-aggro AI a little as well?

Somewhat unrelated issue, but You can't scram/web fighters to prevent the owner from retracting them like normal drones, they just teleport back to the bay. I don't know why this is how it is - at a guess, it's a coding limitation, like how EVE's software doesn't allow for delegated fighters to receive skill and ship bonuses - but if there's a way to make this work, it should definitely get taken care of.

This is especially true if fighters do get deflated so they get a damage and HP boost individually, since if you need to do more damage to kill one, it gives the owner more time to just retract them and keep them alive forever. Then it becomes a sort of a risk vs. reward problem.

Issues worth considering, anyway.

Angelonico
Helljumpers
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:46:00 - [321]
 

/signed

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:47:00 - [322]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 11/09/2007 21:49:07
There is a post in this forum and a post in the blogs thread regarding the 5 drone limit. It is most certianly still in place.

Bandwidth is a manner in which you can unhinge the size and stength of drones that a ship can launch from its drone bay. Expect ships like the arbitrator and vexor to have 125 cubes or more of bay, but only to be able to launch 5 medium drones. Or 2 heavy, 2 medium, 2 light, or 3 heavy. If you have ever seen the idea behind "drone control points" bandwidth will probably look like something similar to that.

ed: Drone aggression seems to have been removed according to the blog, so that is one piece of the puzzle

Kif
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:58:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: Shoukei
i say that no carrier should be able to carry any fighters, to reduce lag when goonies bring 800 alts in noobships to grind the system into a halt.


ahhh I love your posts, seriously keep posting.

The StrayDawg
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.09.11 22:29:00 - [324]
 

Please just make the game go text-based when there are more than 600 people in a system.

Devian 666
Transmetropolitan
Posted - 2007.09.12 01:21:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: The StrayDawg
Please just make the game go text-based when there are more than 600 people in a system.
I endorse this idea but with a matrix style interface with the scrolling symbols. No wait Eve already has an overview.

When I used to run a text based MUD we could easily handle 125 players with very low loading on a Pentium 100.

Any drone optimisation would be greatly appreciated.

Valea
Life. Universe. Everything.
Posted - 2007.09.12 04:33:00 - [326]
 

Well, the newest dev blog says drones are getting a long overdue overhaul. Hopefully this is not just the UI and addition of bandwidth, but an actual overhaul of the drone code itself.

Bloody Dame
Posted - 2007.09.12 12:33:00 - [327]
 

Is this a Goon commercial???

HeadWar
The Executioners
Capital.Punishment
Posted - 2007.09.12 14:26:00 - [328]
 

Edited by: HeadWar on 12/09/2007 14:26:02
Originally by: Goumindong
able to launch 5 medium drones. Or 2 heavy, 2 medium, 2 light, or 3 heavy.

Math's not your strong point, is it? Razz

5 medium, or 1 hvy, 2 medium, 1 light, or 2 hvy. (Assuming bandwidth scales the same way as current drones volume.) At no point should an Arbitrator be able to launch more than five drones though. (As you point out yourself. Very Happy)

Kcel Chim
Caldari
Arcane Technologies
The Five
Posted - 2007.09.14 11:05:00 - [329]
 

The op has a good cause, to reduce lag. But it starts at the wrong end of the calculation. IF we reduce the amount of drones or even if we remove them as a whole we would only achieve that another 100 players can squeeze into big fleetbattles. Which wouldnt change the lag situation the slightest because quickly those 100 additional spots would be filled and we would look at the same lag we are looking at now.

Also the op is running on wrong calculations and ignoring certain keyfacts.
First of all we need to be clear we are comparing players from the same weaponbranch. We compare players with droneships with other players in droneships and then we compare them to the average fleetbattleship which in return we will compare to the average other shipclasses.

So our first comparison: normal ships / Droneships
A normal t1 frig can launch 0-1 drone.
A normal t1 cruiser can launch 0-2 drones.
A normal t1 battleship can launch 4-5 drones.
A normal t1 carrier can launch 8 fighters (average lvl 4 skills)

A t2 dronefrig can launch 5 drones.
A t1/t2 dronecruiser can launch 5 drones.
A t1 dronebattleship can launch 5 drones.
A t1 carrier with 4 cunits can launch 12 fighters.

We see that the average amount of drone growth rate between the different average classes on the regular t1 level is always ~100% from frig to cruiser to bs to carrier.
However on the t2 level we have the problem that while all classes max out at the arifical 5drone barrier. The carrier can use cunits which simulates the droneboni by adding new fighters instead of +20% hp and dps per level.

So the conclusion is that between the shipclasses the carrier is not outstanding in its basic form but if it fits cunits because it adds new drones instead of enhancing existing ones.

However capital ships are already on the same level as bs when it comes to their slotlayout. While theoretically bigger ships with more slots create more information and effects capitalships are "subpar".

A possible solution would be to allow carriers the ability to control 8-10 drones (depending on skill) but to change cunits to the point where either the mod or the skill adds 10-20% hp and dmg per unit/skillevel to the existing fighters/drones when activated.
A Mothership would then get a "natural" ship bonus of 1 fighter per level and +200% fighter dmg and hp per level (to simulate the +3 fighters per level). However then we would have superfighters, especially if the mothership uses cunits.

As for the often used example of how "fighters and drones fight in lag". Those examples are quiet silly and made up. Drones only work under 2 conditions. A) the controller/ remote controller is not effected by lag and hence it doesnt make a difference between him using drones or his guns. B) the controller / remote controller is effected by lag and the "victim" attacks the lagged out person and gets autoaggro which is imo not a bad thing either and nothing to complain about, afterall you want a fight.

Like i said in my initial statement, no modification to drones or fighters will make the game in any way or form more playable unless a maximum player amount in battles get enforced. As we have seen during the past years, the amount of players participating in fleetfights steadily increased and always filled up newly created buffers to decrease lag quickly to the point of unplayability.

Especially since some alliances have no issue and see no problem of enduring lag to achieve their ingame goals there is no point for an improvement discussion. I dont see why they wouldnt simply add another 100 or 200 players if they could. Afterall they are not reducing their fleetsizes right now when they see unplayable lag ahead. Simply said, any alliance who will "move" 400 players to a certain area pretending to look for fights will move 600 players if the lag would stay at the same level aslong as no hardcoded limitations are made to the amount of players (per faction) per system

EDIT: Cunit = Dronecontrolunit

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.14 14:01:00 - [330]
 

Edited by: James Duar on 14/09/2007 14:01:07
Snipped everything which had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Originally by: Kcel Chim
As for the often used example of how "fighters and drones fight in lag". Those examples are quiet silly and made up. Drones only work under 2 conditions. A) the controller/ remote controller is not effected by lag and hence it doesnt make a difference between him using drones or his guns. B) the controller / remote controller is effected by lag and the "victim" attacks the lagged out person and gets autoaggro which is imo not a bad thing either and nothing to complain about, afterall you want a fight.

I'm not entirely convinced this is how drone auto-aggression mechanics work but I can't log on and test it right now.

Originally by: Kcel Chim
Like i said in my initial statement, no modification to drones or fighters will make the game in any way or form more playable unless a maximum player amount in battles get enforced. As we have seen during the past years, the amount of players participating in fleetfights steadily increased and always filled up newly created buffers to decrease lag quickly to the point of unplayability.

The number of pilots in fleet fights has not increased to lag buffers, it has increased as the number of available pilots has increased. No one "just brings 100 people" - that's 100 people who need to be motivated to actually turn up to a battle and fight, and it gets progressively harder to try and get more and more people. The idea that people "just bring 200 more people" is ridiculous.

Originally by: Kcel Chim
Especially since some alliances have no issue and see no problem of enduring lag to achieve their ingame goals there is no point for an improvement discussion. I dont see why they wouldnt simply add another 100 or 200 players if they could. Afterall they are not reducing their fleetsizes right now when they see unplayable lag ahead. Simply said, any alliance who will "move" 400 players to a certain area pretending to look for fights will move 600 players if the lag would stay at the same level aslong as no hardcoded limitations are made to the amount of players (per faction) per system

EVERY alliance will add as many people to a battle as they are able and so long as strategic objectives remain as "this is the single most important thing here" this means EVERY person not off ratting/mining/whatever is going to head for that battle because hey, people like being part of important big things.

Hard coded player caps, even with enforced balancing, do nothing but favor higher SP at the end of the day and nullify the political benefits of being charismatic or motivational, which EVE is very much about seeing as how no alliance dies except from within.

To talk about "400 players" being a problem of people not wanting fights is ******ed - you get 400 players because if you want to win you damn well need 200 or whatever you think the enemy is bringing and so when you say "hey guys come on this op" you say "because it is damn important we will totally kill those Goons/BoB/Rise/RA whatever"


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 : last (15)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only